Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


So you accept that you cannot disprove that humans are affecting the climate and therefore they may well be. You just refute the science that quantifies the extent and methods.

(and yes, it is quantifiable, if you accept the science)




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
One thing to consider: given that axial tilt continues to decline, the Earth overall, and polar regions in particular, should be cooling. Meanwhile, reduced solar activity and a negative PDO means that compared with the 1980s and 1990s, the current decade should, globally, be cooler.

All else being equal.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


So you accept that you cannot disprove that humans are affecting the climate and therefore they may well be. You just refute the science that quantifies the extent and methods.

(and yes, it is quantifiable, if you accept the science)



You seem a little confused, despite our efforts, so here are solid facts:

1. Humans may or may not contribute toward climate change; though we cannot prove either way, however we probably do have an affect due to interconnectivity. Though saying that, so does a butterfly flapping it's wings.

2. It is impossible to ordinate/quantify each respective factors contribution due to afore mentioned interconnectivity.

3. Even *if* we could say humans are X% to blame, what do you propose...stopping all human development? You do realise that humans are part of the ecosystem too, right? And moreover, telling humans to stop activity in order to control the climate is akin to trying to lower the temperature of the ocean by you spitting into it.

4. Climate change is completely natural, and in fact trying to control/freeze it *is* the unnatural act, not the change itself. To try and halt climate change is unnatural. Moreover, why is it such a bad thing that the earth heats up in the long term (if it does at all)?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Wow, telling me I need to do research?

The square footage of forests has be reduced drastically over the past 150 years by human. That's a fact! The things you link don't negate this FACT. Ever heard of the forests of Lebanon? Beautiful trees talked about in the bible destroyed in a brief span of time.

So you completely ignore my facts and instead resort to insulting me and propagating things that don't actually negate my facts.

If what you're claiming is true, that forests drive climate, then humans are indeed causing climate change by destroying all the forests. You're a moron if you deny humans have destroyed countless acres of forests the past 150 years.

You're just upset your thread backfired on your face, and you proved the point you were trying to disprove.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by jdub297
 


Wow, telling me I need to do research?

The square footage of forests has be reduced drastically over the past 150 years by human. That's a fact! The things you link don't negate this FACT. Ever heard of the forests of Lebanon? Beautiful trees talked about in the bible destroyed in a brief span of time.

So you completely ignore my facts and instead resort to insulting me and propagating things that don't actually negate my facts.

If what you're claiming is true, that forests drive climate, then humans are indeed causing climate change by destroying all the forests. You're a moron if you deny humans have destroyed countless acres of forests the past 150 years.

You're just upset your thread backfired on your face, and you proved the point you were trying to disprove.


I think the overarching implication by the OP is that *if* the data is true, and forests contribute more to climatic change than humans, then in fact less forests will cause result in less climatic change, ie. human activity (eg. deforestation) will result in less climatic change.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
When those in powerful positions worship nature and believe that mankind can "reincarnate" into animals, perhaps more will understand just why a "theory" such as this paper could be held up by those leaders to INSIST that millions upon millions of acres of land must be placed "off limits" to humans and to their livestock used for food. Those who worship nature tend to view man as a parasite, and if one views man as nothing more valuable than a parasite, it doesn't take much for them to devise the exterminator.

A lie can be believed as truth, especially if "signs and wonders" are perceived through the senses which seem to validate the lie as truth. Add to that the fear of death which controls man and his actions, and those nature worshipping vegetarian leaders have one powerful control over the populace. They continually play the fear card because it works on a populace devoid of God's promises.

Fearing death will cause people to do and agree to things which are wrong. They know it, unfortunately most of us don't.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
This article really interests me and I think it goes to show something I've known for a long time. There are too many factors to weather/ climate change for anyone to ever say with any certainty what is going on and why. Just when "they" tell us what is going on something new pops up to throw a wrench in the system.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Explains Gore's move to sell his investment of Current TV to the Al Jazeera network days before this 'science' was released.



Al Gore's global hypocrisy

Warming's guru sells Current TV to oil-backed Al Jazeera

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
cnews.canoe.ca...


www.reuters.com...
"Terms were undisclosed, but analysts estimated the deal could be worth as much as $500 million; Gore has reportedly pocketed roughly $100 million in the deal."

It is a win-win for both Gore and Al Jazeera since now climate change can be blamed on forests and not big oil

. www.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 3-2-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
This was an interesting read, but I find myself in disagreement with the interpretations the scientists of the paper have come up with, even though I don't doubt their understanding of the mechanism of vapour and evaporation and temperature gradients, but to suggest that it is the presence of large swathes of forested lands that drive the climate and its dynamics seems entirely counter-intuitive and wrong.

I cannot accept that throughout the past couple of decades of climate modelling that climatologists have not taken vapour and evaporation, temperature gradients and differential air densities into account in their models. The heart of our global climate is the sun, for it is the heat we receive from it that is circulated around the planet that drives our climate. Large frorested lands like the Amazon do act like air pumps, because they are carbon sinks, taking in carbon and photosynthesising it into oxygen.

The various temperature differentials of our near-surface atmosphere, fluctuate air movement at different speeds and in different directions to each other in counter flows, flowing in peaks and troughs and spinning vortices. Our climates are driven entirely by the heat from the sun, which has its wax and wane periods with higher emmissions and lower emmissions over decadal periods.

If the sun reduced its emissions by a certain factor, the earth would settle into a general ice age over decades, and that would be because without the sun's heat emission, all the elements that are a part of our dynamic climate would cease to function, or rather, quite simply 'switch off'.

Although our global climate is somewhat moderate, and has been so for tens of thousands of years, it would not take too much for it to lose its moderate stability. Our climate is a multi-layered dynamic, and because of this complexity, it is subject to entropic physics. Simply put, the more complex a system is, the harder it is to maintain it, eventually it's complexity breaks down into simpler less complex systems...which dynamically, is what an ice age is.

I believe our planet goes through these cycles of complexity (moderate) climate to non-complex climate (ice age) every tens of thousands of years...and the driving factor behind all this is not the trees, but the fluctuating heat we receive from the sun.
edit on 3/2/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I'm sure the paper could be used by proponents of Agenda 21 and radical environmentalists that we must protect the trees from humans at all costs.

And no there isn't a consensus. That was manufactured by the IPCC. Agenda 21 is all about so
-called "Sustainable Development", and AGW is a manufactured crisis created by Agenda 21 people such as Maurice Strong for the purpose of controlling the earth's resources and installing the UN One World Totalitarian govt.
edit on 4-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Wouldn't an Australian turning something upside down, just make that the right way up to the rest of us.... boom boom



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Bout all I have to say is I wrote long ago about for every tree we destroyed it would have needed to be replanted by tenfold and that assessment was for fifty years ago. The way this race is destroying trees it might be one hundred fold now...........history is again repeating itself ....peoples better wake up to this fact.

Time is ticking the doomsday clock should be two minutes to twelve.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Climate change is completely natural, and in fact trying to control/freeze it *is* the unnatural act, not the change itself. To try and halt climate change is unnatural. Moreover, why is it such a bad thing that the earth heats up in the long term (if it does at all)?


Death by smallpox is completely natural as well
Should we have no erradicated it?

However, humans do affect the climate, often to their detriment. Is it intelligent to continue doing so or to determine ways to prevent/reduce said impact?

You accept that human affect the climate. So why should we contiune doing so if we can avoid it?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Climate change is completely natural, and in fact trying to control/freeze it *is* the unnatural act, not the change itself. To try and halt climate change is unnatural. Moreover, why is it such a bad thing that the earth heats up in the long term (if it does at all)?


Death by smallpox is completely natural as well
Should we have no erradicated it?

However, humans do affect the climate, often to their detriment. Is it intelligent to continue doing so or to determine ways to prevent/reduce said impact?

You accept that human affect the climate. So why should we contiune doing so if we can avoid it?



You clearly have some form of impairment, as my position has been repeated several times, yet you continue to repeat your platitudes.
edit on 4-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Well you started all this by asserting that 'AGW is a BS assumption'

I took that as meaning you do not accept that any human activity causes any global warming? What else was I meant to think?

Maybe I misunderstood you?

There is in my (and science) opinion no doubt that various human activities are causing global warming. And global cooling. And that natural factors also cause global warming. And global cooling. The next current result being warming. If we do not wish the warming trend of the past few decades to continue, it seems sensible to me to cut back on those activities whihc we know cause warming, and which in many cases are increasing (hence the recent failure of the 'new mini ice age' - warming has over-ridden what ought now be a noticeable cooling trend due to decreased solar activity and negative PDO)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
lived on maui for a long time, historically it was a lot wetter on a certain side before it was deforested, it doesnt take a scientist to confirm all this, just logic, the trees made the clouds and the clouds made the rain, any model that doesnt consider this would be seriously flawed. also all Civilizations rise and fall with their top soil



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 

Global warming skeptics will undoubtedly claim this new model is the most accurate, even if only one scientist is making the claim.


There are none so blind as those who will not see.

If you even tried a little to see what else is out there, you'd see that even some AGW advocates acknowledge the validity of the study.


"Worse than we thought" has been one of the most durable phrases lately among those pushing for urgent action to stem the buildup of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

But on one critically important metric -- how hot the planet will get from a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of greenhouse gases, a k a "climate sensitivity" -- some climate researchers with substantial publication records are shifting toward the lower end of the warming spectrum.
...
But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it's getting harder to see why the high-end projections are given much weight.

This is also not a "single-study syndrome" situation, where one outlier research paper is used to cast doubt on a bigger body of work -- as Skeptical Science asserted over the weekend.
...
In fact, there is an accumulating body of reviewed, published research shaving away the high end of the range of possible warming estimates from doubled carbon dioxide levels.

A Closer Look at Moderating Views of Climate Sensitivity

The fact is that even AGW priests are giving way to indusputable science, instead of speculation and fear-mongering and acknowledge that exaggeations and hype are no longer viable.


Chief among climate scientists critical of the high-sensitivity holdouts is James Annan, an experienced climate modeler based in Japan who contributed to the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
...
He's reinforced his view in light of the latest research and temperature patterns. On Jan. 27, he posted a comment on Dot Earth that in the last few days has resurfaced in many places around the Web. Here's the most important line from Annan's Dot Earth comment, in which he notes how recent events point to less warming from a given buildup of carbon dioxide:

“[T]here have now been several recent papers showing much the same - numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...

It has gotten to the point that claims such as Ghost375 quote, the infamous pleas that "the science is settled," and faith in "the consensus" have no place in the study of climate change.

Of course, the AGW acolytes will no doubt fall back on their faith to sustain them and the IPCC gods to preach the re-distribution and de-industrialization dogma they all cling to.

jw



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 

I cannot accept that throughout the past couple of decades of climate modelling that climatologists have not taken vapour and evaporation, temperature gradients and differential air densities into account in their models.


Sorry tht you cannot accept it; but, it is a fact. Most models do not take H2O into account, a they are focused upon CO2 "forcing" and little else. They could not sustain their clamoring for reductions in CO2 if it were otherwise. Have you not been paying attention to the arguments over whether, and how much, cloud cover should be accounted for or factored-in to the modeling?


The heart of our global climate is the sun, for it is the heat we receive from it that is circulated around the planet that drives our climate.


Funny thing, the IPCC and their FARs, upon which ALL of the AGW religion depends, find that solar radiative forcing is negligible in assessing warming trends and causation.

Reading the IPCC’s reports, one finds that there is an apparent consensus that modern human activities dominate the causes of climate change, leading to the philosophy of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (the FAR, published in 2007), as with earlier reports, identifies several physical agencies altering the climate either through heating or, in a few cases, cooling. These are termed Radiative Forcing (RF) factors.
All except one of the RF factors the IPCC describes are man-made … .

The single natural RF component included by the IPCC in its calculations is solar variability: that is, changes in the intrinsic energy output by the Sun, and therefore alterations in the flux of sunlight reaching our planet. “The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance” states the FAR, the increase being estimated to lie between 0.06 and 0.30 W/m2, with a best-guess of 0.12. The latter figure is less than ten percent of the AGW estimate [attributable to man].

Climate Change And Earth’s Changing Orbit


jw.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 

I cannot accept that throughout the past couple of decades of climate modelling that climatologists have not taken vapour and evaporation, temperature gradients and differential air densities into account in their models.


Sorry tht you cannot accept it; but, it is a fact. Most models do not take H2O into account, a they are focused upon CO2 "forcing" and little else. They could not sustain their clamoring for reductions in CO2 if it were otherwise. Have you not been paying attention to the arguments over whether, and how much, cloud cover should be accounted for or factored-in to the modeling?


The heart of our global climate is the sun, for it is the heat we receive from it that is circulated around the planet that drives our climate.


Funny thing, the IPCC and their FARs, upon which ALL of the AGW religion depends, find that solar radiative forcing is negligible in assessing warming trends and causation.

Reading the IPCC’s reports, one finds that there is an apparent consensus that modern human activities dominate the causes of climate change, leading to the philosophy of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (the FAR, published in 2007), as with earlier reports, identifies several physical agencies altering the climate either through heating or, in a few cases, cooling. These are termed Radiative Forcing (RF) factors.
All except one of the RF factors the IPCC describes are man-made … .

The single natural RF component included by the IPCC in its calculations is solar variability: that is, changes in the intrinsic energy output by the Sun, and therefore alterations in the flux of sunlight reaching our planet. “The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance” states the FAR, the increase being estimated to lie between 0.06 and 0.30 W/m2, with a best-guess of 0.12. The latter figure is less than ten percent of the AGW estimate [attributable to man].

Climate Change And Earth’s Changing Orbit


jw.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Well you started all this by asserting that 'AGW is a BS assumption'

I took that as meaning you do not accept that any human activity causes any global warming? What else was I meant to think?

Maybe I misunderstood you?

There is in my (and science) opinion no doubt that various human activities are causing global warming. And global cooling. And that natural factors also cause global warming. And global cooling. The next current result being warming. If we do not wish the warming trend of the past few decades to continue, it seems sensible to me to cut back on those activities whihc we know cause warming, and which in many cases are increasing (hence the recent failure of the 'new mini ice age' - warming has over-ridden what ought now be a noticeable cooling trend due to decreased solar activity and negative PDO)


Right, for the millionth time...

"Humans drive climate change" - incorrect.

"Humans contribute, along with a plethora of other factors, toward climatic change" - very probably correct.

I say 'probably' because we can't hermetically isolate each factor in turn and compare every combination and permutation to 'prove' the hypothesis, and again...even a butterfly has some sort of 'impact'. The reason we can't ordinate the impact of each respctive factor is because the environment is an INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM.






top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join